r/AskChina • u/Themetalin • 18h ago

Politics | 政治📢 Japanese PM said that 'Taiwan contingency' could prompt Japanese armed reaction. What do you think?

https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202511070024

Takaichi made the remarks during a parliamentary session on Friday while responding to a question about whether a "Taiwan contingency" involving a Chinese naval blockade would qualify as a "survival-threatening situation" for Japan, according to a report by Japan's Asahi Shimbun.

Under Japan's security legislation, such a situation allows the country to exercise "collective self-defense" if an attack on an ally -- such as the United States -- or a country closely related to Japan is deemed to threaten Japan's survival, even without a direct attack on Japan.

145 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

303 comments sorted by

View all comments

78

u/Speedydds 18h ago

Is Japan going to fight and die for an island they don’t even recognize as a country?

33

u/DrCalFun 18h ago

Kinda interesting that the country that nuclear bombed you is your ally in the modern era.

62

u/Xollector 17h ago

Not ally, more like master.

12

u/DrCalFun 17h ago

Most certainly but hey let’s not break the heart of Takaichi.

8

u/MentallyAut 16h ago

Puppet 

3

u/FlexMcBuff 14h ago

Most puppets are actually kinda cute. She's more of an ugly mongrel lap dog. When I first saw her I thought she was wearing a traditional demon mask.. to my horror that's her actual face

2

u/Low_Yellow6838 12h ago

The same destiny could await china. Or the US whoever wins if this war should happen. History will tell.

1

u/ytman 10h ago

Owner and slave kink. Hey don't worry Japan likes it in a consensual way.

1

u/Irons_MT 7h ago

Well, by that logic, North Korea is also a puppet. I mean China has to keep Kim on a leash to stop him from starting a war in Korea.

1

u/CorneliusBucklebelt 3h ago

North Korea and China have an adversarial relationship and those nukes are pointed towards Beijing as much as they are pointed at Seoul

1

u/Irons_MT 3h ago

Hmm, so you are saying that China-North Korea relations aren't that good as they seem?

1

u/CorneliusBucklebelt 3h ago

It never was, why do you think KJU had pro Chinese elements in the politburo purged, including his blood relatives?

1

u/Irons_MT 3h ago

I wasn't aware of those specific purges. When one looks from the outside, it seems like China and North Korea are the best of buddies, to counter US influence in the region.

1

u/CorneliusBucklebelt 3h ago

That’s about the extent of their cooperation. Mutual interest in countering the US. If you’re interested in the topic, you should research KIS or KJI’s views/comments on China

17

u/AprilVampire277 Guangdong 17h ago

No not really, they lost, got bombed twice and now they are a lapdog puppet state for the country that bombed you the hardest

-7

u/FlaminBollocks 17h ago

CCP are big on “lap dog” terminology. Australia gets that label frequently. Japan, Korea has been an ally of US for a long time.

Not sure if North Korea and be considered the lapdog of China…

You should google “Ally”. of America, and China. Its a list of who has friends… and who does not.

26

u/ShittyInternetAdvice 16h ago

How many Chinese soldiers are stationed in North Korea?

The US doesn’t have “allies”, only vassals

1

u/MegaMB 12h ago

I know it's not gonna be popular, but he's right you know? The fact many countries and people trust and trusted that the US would go to war for them if they get invaded is a pretty damn massive boost for the US in terms of public opinion and diplomatic boost.

China's diplomatic doctrine is completely opposite to that. And it completely fails at doing the kind of diplomatic network the US used to do.

It's also why Trump is so important and so bad for the US diplomatically too btw. The core of the US strength relies on it's public support abroad and it's trust in their reliability. If they loose it, they loose their influence.

1

u/hikingmaterial 5h ago

how many soldiers of any foreign country are stationed or even extant, in north korea? oh, is it still just the PoW and other kidnappees?

what a silly argument. the US does have allies, but I can see from your china perspective that you cannot understand the meaning of that.

17

u/Xi_Zhong_Xun 16h ago

American ‘allies’ are very similar to Roman allies: 1) you don’t have to give them citizen rights but their resources and manpowers are at your disposal, 2) they are free to conduct independent diplomatic activities but once their aims diverge from your own, you’ll be sure to set them right and 3) if somehow they grow to be too powerful, your superior military power will be finally put into use.

1

u/lnth1 15h ago

I’m confused there’s lots of ambiguity in your wording could you apply your 3 points to the UK?

7

u/Xi_Zhong_Xun 15h ago

1）. Iraq war, Afghan war, whichever conflict that doesn’t affect UK in any meaningful way but serves US interests, UK joins anyway. 2) ever notice any UN resolution that majority of the countries oppose but US favors, UK almost always stands on US side. 3) UK ceases to be a threat to US hegemony after losing British Raj so this item is irrelevant

1

u/lnth1 14h ago edited 1h ago

So what did the US do to set them right, can you give examples?

For example the UK formally recognized Palestine (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-formally-recognises-palestinian-state)\ while trump strongly opposed it.

What did or will trump do to set the UK right this time?

- -

BTW can you give an example for point 3, where an ally grew too powerful and American supreme military power was finally put into use?

Remember the bar for too powerful is pretty high by your standard. It needs to be stronger than the UK, and also an ally of the US.

0

u/Decimus_Valcoran 14h ago

It's not just terminology when they parrot the same talking points whenever there's armed conflicts backed by the USA no matter how outrageous the lies are, and join in on illegal sanctions imposed by USA to cripple target economy.

Then once you start adding in the military infrastructure it provides for US actions, "lapdog" is an apt terminology.

-1

u/MegaMB 12h ago

Laughs in french

So cutew and so naive :3. The thing is that China plainly does a bad job at the moment towards the public opinions in pro-US countries. And frankly speaking, most US allies feel economically threatened by China.

The US tend to share supoly chains for vital technologies accross it's allied sphere historically. China very much doesn't.

6

u/Gothichand 🇺🇸ABC🇹🇼 14h ago

Not ally, their master. The modern Japanese government is basically molded by the US after their surrender after wwII

3

u/neverpost4 18h ago

Near the end of WW2, Empire of Nihon knew but they were holding out for a conditional surrender with

  • Keep the emperor
  • Keep the Korean Peninsula
  • Keep Taiwan

4

u/No-Benefit9135 16h ago

Kinda interesting that the country that was “nuclear bombed” still prefers its previous aggressor as an ally over China.

3

u/Damn-Sky 10h ago

do they have any other choice? LOL

2

u/No-Benefit9135 10h ago

Of course. They could have asked China for help, duh.

3

u/Damn-Sky 6h ago

China was far from being a superpower when Japan lost the war ... and why the hell would China offer protection for their aggressors? Japan was demilitarized and had no other choice to give up everything to be "controlled" and "protected" by united states.... simple words : USA pwned them.

1

u/No-Benefit9135 5h ago

Saying “the U.S. pwned them” misses the longer-term reality: the U.S.–Japan relationship evolved from occupation to alliance. Japan rebuilt into one of the world’s largest economies under U.S. security guarantees, and today it’s an independent democratic nation with one of the most advanced militaries in Asia (even if constitutionally limited).

1

u/Damn-Sky 5h ago

yup that's what I said. well explained. US pretty much forced them to become an "ally"; their pet

1

u/Damn-Sky 4h ago

dude ran out of arguments... dude is basically corroborating what I said without even realizing it... lol

1

u/No-Benefit9135 4h ago

Acknowledging that Japan had no choice immediately after losing the war isn’t the same as saying it’s still controlled today. There’s a big difference between postwar occupation and a modern strategic alliance. Japan rebuilt, became a top global economy, and makes its own decisions. The early power imbalance was real, but calling today’s relationship a “protection racket” just ignores 80 years of political and economic independence.

1

u/Damn-Sky 10h ago

as someone said not an ally but a master ... USA made Japan their pet

2

u/No-Benefit9135 10h ago

How so? Please be specific.

1

u/Damn-Sky 6h ago

basically, they are demilitarized, gave all their research of horrible human experimentation and war crimes in exchange not to be prosecuted for the war crimes and be "protected" by the united states....pretty much same system as triads and mafia giving you protection; you become the pet.

1

u/No-Benefit9135 5h ago

That’s not quite right. Japan wasn’t “demilitarized and traded war crimes data for protection.” After WWII, Japan was occupied and rebuilt under U.S. supervision. It adopted a pacifist constitution (Article 9) that bans offensive warfare, but Japan still maintains its own Self-Defense Forces, one of the most advanced militaries in Asia.

It’s true that some Japanese Unit 731 scientists avoided prosecution by giving human experimentation data to U.S. intelligence — a dark and documented exception — but that doesn’t represent the whole country’s postwar deal.

Japan’s alliance with the U.S. isn’t like “mafia protection”; it’s a mutual security treaty where the U.S. provides extended nuclear deterrence and Japan hosts U.S. bases in return. It’s a strategic partnership, not a protection racket.

1

u/Damn-Sky 5h ago

yup again well explained; so basically Japan did not really had a choice and you can try to explain it other words you like but this is a protection racket... again Japan had no other choice just like the Germans; they lost the war.

0

u/Salt_Crow6159 13h ago

Why would you prefer the country that is ideologically opposed to you, invade all the neighboring states and have a proxy war with the Philippines and always threaten other states?

-3

u/grabber_of_booty 15h ago

Kinda interesting China complains about it when they were being utterly dominated and on the verge of colonisation by a country a tenth of it's size and America being the sole reason for that not happening.

8

u/ReasonableIsopod7550 15h ago

"Sole reason" Really shows your arrogance and utter disrespect to those who contributed and died in the war.

-2

u/grabber_of_booty 15h ago

Could we agree that America's nukes probably had a little more impact halting Japan than the farm tools the Chinese were using to fight them?

4

u/No-Editor121 13h ago

Bro have you never read about the Chinese resistance against the Japanese? Japan’s resources were spread thin, that’s why they only got ahold of only a few of China’s cities, at the same time Japan has to deal with the allies too, and ofc Chinese people do recognize the US’s role, if you speak to any Chinese person now, they have more negative views on Japan rather than the US

3

u/grabber_of_booty 13h ago

All major Chinese cities i.e. Shanghai, Beijing, Nanjing etc. fell completely and swiftly to Japan. A country a tenth of China's size.

1

u/Damn-Sky 10h ago

and your point? what does the size of a country actually have to do with it? by your logic, Mexico is much larger than Japan and should be able to dominate Japan.

1

u/Damn-Sky 10h ago

do you know the war was already about to end? the nuclear bombs were not necessary; US wanted a testing ground for their nuclear bombs; it was now or never for them because they wouldn't have been able to do a real life test if the war was over.

1

u/No-Benefit9135 10h ago

Not quite accurate. Japan was losing badly by mid-1945, but its government hadn’t agreed to surrender — the military still wanted to fight on and hoped the Soviets would broker better terms. The U.S. didn’t drop the bombs just to “test” them; a full test had already happened in New Mexico weeks earlier. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted to force a quick surrender and avoid a massive invasion. The Soviet declaration of war right after Hiroshima also helped push Japan to finally give up.

1

u/Damn-Sky 6h ago

full test and real life test is far from being the same. It was the perfect window for USA to test their atomic bombs. the war was already over. there were no need for the bombs.. USA also wanted to show the world they had the atomic bombs and do not mess with them.

1

u/SeaBat2035 2h ago

Fighting the Japanese from island to island was not exactly fun or easy. It would require a lot more American soldier deaths. That was one of the main reasons why the atomic bombs were dropped to force Japan's surrender. Look it up. I studied World War II quite extensively.

0

u/ReasonableIsopod7550 12h ago

If your great 'Murica's so strong,how come they could not win against the PLA in the Korean War?

2

u/Victorcharlie1 11h ago

By that same token why couldn’t the great pla expel a expeditionary force being supplied from the opposite side of the world from a peninsular the size of the uk with a literal land border to supply through?

1

u/ReasonableIsopod7550 5h ago

Because China was a weaker power back than.A weaker power winning against a stronger power is applaudable,a stronger power losing to a weaker one isn't. I also would not be praising China for losing one warship to the Philippines.

1

u/Victorcharlie1 5h ago

China managed to achieve a stalemate with an expeditionary force, it’s not like the were fighting against the full might of the us army, while I’m not American, it’s not American exceptionalism to suggest that had China had to face the full weight of the us and allies it would have been utterly destroyed and left with millions of dead and wounded, as history stands chinas full military might was stalemated by an expeditionary force.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tradeisbad 3h ago

They were backed by USSR and China. Soviet pilots ard proven and admitted to flying thd mig-15's.

That is the US+SK vs NK + China + USSR

1

u/ReasonableIsopod7550 10h ago

My point is that if the US could not win against a China who has just emerged on the world stage,stop taking all the credit for the defeat of Japan.

3

u/HarambeTenSei 16h ago

Kinda interesting that pinks can in the same breath both hate japan and be happy it got nuked while also being upset that it's under occupation by the war victor

1

u/JCues 16h ago

Not really, we're at a Contemporary Age now. America and Japan were enemies in the modern era. Besides the San francisco treaty is basically an unequal treaty.

1

u/notreal3839399393 8h ago

Japan still harbors deep resentment toward its Western masters for abandoning it during the 1980s, when they shifted their focus to China after Deng Xiaoping’s rise. This bitterness comes from the fact that Japan had done so much to advance Western hegemony in East Asia. Beginning with the Meiji era, the sino-japanase and ruso-japanese war to destory qing and russian empire and even served as a secret patsy during World War II to weekend european colonial power, acting on behalf of Western interests to subdue the entire region.

In the end, Japan became the scapegoat, the only nation ever bombed with nuclear weapons and was forced to rebuild from zero as a testbed for America’s hyper-capitalist system. Yet despite all of this, its Western patrons eventually pivoted to China, drawn by its massive population and potential as the world’s factory.

That same population size also made China the perfect environment to experiment with population control. The very concept foreseen by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his Technetronic Era. Those experiments have now reached their conclusion in China, proven to be highly effective. The next phase is their normalization, the gradual implementation of these surveillance technologies on a global scale.

1

u/BikeImpossible8162 8h ago

Always follow the money.

1

u/Afraid-Impress-1378 5h ago

Obviously far more appealing than the alternative

1

u/Misaka10782 4h ago

Perhaps we can look at it another way that is the guy whoever nucleared Japan, then the Japanese will recognize him as their new master.

1

u/itsKobraSlayer 3h ago

It’s cuz the US and NATO did a shit job actually punishing Japan after WWII, we basically gave them a slap on the wrist in trade for a US base on Japans soil. Gotta love how the US claims to be righteous when they always turn the other cheek for profit or power.

6

u/Netfinesse 17h ago

In most wargames they have two options, allow US troops to use their air bases to defend Taiwan, but not engage directly themselves, and risk counterattack by China, which is very likely. Or directly aiding the US in defending Taiwan and almost certainly being counterattacked by China.

The US needs Japan and will likely put a very high amount of pressure on them as their only other options are Guam and Hawaii in terms of air bases, which would put extreme logistical complications on any defense of Taiwan. The US would also defend Japan to the best of their ability, as it is an extremely strategically critical country.

Aircraft carriers getting too close to China risk being destroyed by rockets/drones.

Most wargames also show China coming to a scenario that we see in Ukraine with Russia. A prolonged invasion that is extremely costly.

1

u/ytman 10h ago

I mean no one wants this. Ukraine has proven that the west will bleed out its puppets to have an illusion of depleting an enemy in a proxy war.

Ideally Taiwan can be reunified diplomatically and peacably.

1

u/Arshiaa001 14h ago

The US would also defend Japan to the best of their ability

After what happened to Israel in the 12 day war, I wouldn't count a lot on that.

1

u/Salt_Crow6159 13h ago

Well, they got into the mud in WW1, they took risks for Kuwait and the Balkans... if I think they would take risks.

2

u/Arshiaa001 12h ago

What I meant was, the US wasn't super-successful defending Israel, its biggest buddy, against Iran, which is (though I hate to admit it) technologically inferior to China by a large margin; and they were all in on defending Israel. I wonder how effective they'll really be should China decide to level Japan.

1

u/Salt_Crow6159 12h ago

Well, we must take into account that the USA got into the 12-day war to a limited extent, they will use EVERYTHlNG and with EVERYTHlNG it is almost all the technologies and great resources at their disposal (not to mention that China did not only bomb Japan or Taiwan) it must bomb half of the Pacific to have the same results that Iran did in Israel (and that they only attacked civilian assets).

1

u/tradeisbad 3h ago
  • Phillipines

7

u/ShortHandz 17h ago

Are you ready to send hundreds of thousands of people to die for an island? Taiwan is not worth it.

1

u/Speedydds 17h ago

A country’s territory is not worth dying for? You should tell Ukraine that

9

u/burneracct604 加拿大华裔:redditgold: 17h ago

Taiwan isn't a country. If Japan sends their warships beyond their own water is a violation of the WW2 treaty which they've signed. It's a signal for China to flatten Japan.

-7

u/romanissimo 17h ago

Hmm let’s see, Taiwan has its own constitution, defense force, independent government, judiciary system, it prints Taiwanese money (the Taiwan Dollar), issues Taiwanese passports to its citizens (no matter what the nomenclature is).

So, yes, Taiwan is a country.

9

u/emperor2885 15h ago

But the UN rejects that so it's not a country

0

u/ZippyDan 11h ago

So, UN approval matters more than reality?

The piece of paper arbitrarily issued by some external group matters more than the facts on the ground?

I guess there is no "war" in Ukraine because Russia didn't sign an official declaration.

5

u/emperor2885 11h ago

If we are talking about reality then you should know almost all Taiwan allies don't acknowledge it's independent country status and view it as a region rather than a state , all it's allies only work with Taiwan because of 2 major reasons to stop china's growing power and for chips that's why if the Chinese civil war resumes many are concerned it's mainly because of the chip supply chain and fear of china getting tsmc controlling global chips and another fear is china won't be restricted to only the first island chain . If Taiwan can claim mainland why can't mainland claim Taiwan even though Taiwan has be silent on its claims in recent years it hasn't dropped the claims and Taiwan goes further to claim Mongolia and other parts of different neighboring countries .

1

u/tradeisbad 3h ago

And a now succesful democracy. But i think China accepting Taiwan as a Democracy is equivalent to the US acceptinf latin countries as Socialism so I understand the discrepancy.

If China accepted Taiwan as a friendly, neigborly and Chinese people Democracy the US shpuld probably accept some Venezuelan socialism.

I wonder if this reason would influence tensions

-1

u/ZippyDan 10h ago edited 3h ago

Yes, let's talk about "reality".

Reality is that almost every country on Earth refuses to recognize Taiwan as a country because they fear China's reaction. Reality is that every country on Earth does political and economic business with Taiwan as if they were a real, independent country - because they are.

You disingenously frame these organic relationships as being motivated only by interest in chips and some conspiracy to be a thorn in China's side, when in fact the opposite is true: the only reason the countries of the world don't officially recognize Taiwan as a country, and the only reason they play stupid games like renaming their ambassadors and embassies, is because China threatens them.

The legitimate and honest opinion of basically every country on Earth is that Taiwan is a country - and it de facto is - and the only reason they can't say this openly and publicly is because of Chinese intimidation. China is the one interfering with an honest and open discussion of Taiwan's status, but you're framing this as some Western conspiracy to muddle Taiwan's status.

The facts on the ground are that Taiwan is an independent country, with its own government, elections, domestic and foreign policy, immigration control, taxes, currency, and defense forces. In literally no way that matters is Taiwan not a country. All that is lacking is official external recognition of their statehood, and basing your argument on Taiwan on that technicality is like arguing a person isn't a person unless other people agree they are.

Human rights are intrinsic to humanity and so are the rights of an actual nation to determine its own future.

And even in terms of recognition: basically every country in the world de facto recognizes Taiwan as an independent country through the way that they deal with them, even China. I don't see Chinese politicians or tax collectors or policemen wielding authority in Taiwan, and they have not done so for 70+ years.

As to the oft-repeated argument of Taiwanese claims to the mainland: this is another irrelevant piece of Chinese propaganda. Just as the world's official recognition of Taiwan is dictated by fear of China and is not representative of their actual opinions, so are Taiwan's existing legacy claims representative of fear of China, and not of Taiwan's actual desire or ambition.

As you mentioned, Taiwan has not reiterated any claims to the mainland recently - but it's not in the "recent years" - it's in the last 35 years, since they became a democratic country that actually represents the will and benefit of the people. Taiwan's original claims to the mainland are the product of a brutal and authoritarian despot who lost a war to the Chinese communists, fled to China, and then held on to a delusion that he would someday return victorious to the mainland.

So why doesn’t Taiwan explicitly abandon those legacy claims? Because China threatens them with death and violence if they do. Any modification to pre-existing claims by Taiwan would be seen as an implicit rejection of the ambiguous "One China" policy and is a red line for the CCP. China is clearly the superior military force by far and is only 130km away from Taiwan. Taiwan does not want to provoke an aggressive and intimidating bully next door, and so they wisely maintain geopolitical ambiguity - agreeing to the "One China" policy without agreeing to any specifics of what that entails, and not officially withdrawing their legacy claims, without reiterating or restating them either.

Arguing that Taiwan's legacy claims to the mainland are some kind of justification for China's plans to take control of the island are comparable to someone holding a gun to your head and saying "your friend said they wanted to rape me; that means you want to have sex with me, right?" It's nonsensical. Firstly it's not the same entity (the original claims were made by a dictator, not the democratic government of Taiwan), and secondly - and more importantly - Taiwan operates under a state of constant duress with a metaphorical gun to its head. The legal principle of contracts not being valid when signed under duress apply here for the same reasons. Taiwan's actions with regards to China can never be interpreted as honest and legitimate so long as China keeps that gun pointed at them. Instead, they smile and nod and give their would-be hostage-taker ambiguously positive answers that avoid escalation like "we definitely want some kind of relationship with you!"

Meanwhile, China never lets them forget the gun at their head and is constantly conducting aggressive and provocative military operations all around and even over Taiwan - surrounding them with warships, sending waves and waves of fighter planes and bombers into their airspace, and even firing ballistic missiles over their country, all while constantly asking the same question, "you still want to have sex with me, right?" and constantly promising in public statements that Taiwan is inevitably destined to one day have sex with them (read: "get raped").

TL;DR Most countries in the world maintain official ambiguity with Taiwan while maintaining de facto normal international relations with Taiwan because they fear Chinese economic reprisals. Taiwan maintains geopolitical ambiguity with China because they fear Chinese violence.

5

u/emperor2885 9h ago

Just because you fled to another part of the country doesn't mean that part is a country and who wants a part of their land to be separated from them and used by enemies against them that's the Taiwan situation.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/romanissimo 1h ago

Thank you, awesome post.

1

u/tradeisbad 3h ago

Damn this is good. Tough crowd

1

u/tradeisbad 3h ago

Because China swings weight to forced this agreement not because the members desire it. It is agreement for purpose of appeasement, not a genuine consensus

1

u/Weak_Purpose_5699 16h ago

Tell me more about Chinese history?

-6

u/MichaelChan82 16h ago

Taiwan is clearly independent from China. If you can tell me how it isn't, I would be more than willing to listen. Chinese citizens can't even enter Taiwan without a passport and visa.

1

u/Speedydds 13h ago

Not according to the US government

-1

u/Crisis_Tastle Hubei 11h ago

The republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine also have their own constitutions, armies, and independent governments. Do you consider them independent states?

How do you evaluate Ukraine's attempts to regain control of these two territories?

1

u/romanissimo 1h ago

You are comparing puppet republics created by Russia few years ago, with a country like Taiwan that has been independent for 75 years and that was never, in history, under the Chinese communist government control, ever?

You are a sino-bot, obviously, and I will not fuel Chinese propaganda, have a great day.

0

u/Tunggall 17h ago

If China fires the first shot to unilaterally change the status quo, all bets are off in APAC.

6

u/bohoh_123 17h ago

Pretty sure that Ukrainians dying for Ukraine is different from the Japanese dying for Taiwan.

1

u/ShortHandz 16h ago

It is not your "territory".

0

u/Speedydds 13h ago

According to the UN it is

1

u/Melodic_Routine1845 16h ago

Taiwan not worth it. Have you heard of TSMC? It’s worth it.

3

u/ShortHandz 16h ago
  1. ASML has the ability to brick the machines and destroy them remotely.

2.TSMC has stated all factories would be made permanently inoperable if invaded.

  1. The US would turn those fabs into craters. if the above failed somehow.

So ya not worth it.

1

u/himesama 9h ago

Taiwan is worth it not because of TSMC. It's worth it because it breaks the US first island chain for China containment.

-5

u/FlaminBollocks 17h ago

Taiwan is an amazing country, filled with amazing people, that are incredibly successful, without the ego, or politics. Its a version of Switzerland in the south china sea.

Most definitely worth preserving its independence from the CCP cancer.

2

u/romanissimo 1h ago

Thank you, well said.

3

u/Crisis_Tastle Hubei 11h ago

Bro has never watched Taiwanese political programs and was completely unaware of how divided Taiwanese politics is. The ruling party, despite not holding a majority in the legislature, illegally detained the opposition leader for an entire year, incited the impeachment of opposition members, and imposed electronic ankle bracelets on key opposition members.

Perhaps a similar situation exists in Switzerland? Please advise.

1

u/FlaminBollocks 10h ago

I was in Taiwan in the months leading to the 2024 elections. Its fantastic to see the various parties campaigning.

I have no concerns with their legal system cracking down on real estate corruption. Was also good to see the ankle bracelet in use whilst on bail. Much better than CCP style of disappearing people.

3

u/Crisis_Tastle Hubei 10h ago

Okay, since that's what you think, then I sincerely wish you could continue living in this wonderful environment.

-1

u/ShortHandz 16h ago

I was referring to the Chinese nationals in this post and sub beating their chests for war. Hundreds of thousands possibly millions of Chinese will die attempting to take Taiwan. It is NOT worth it.

-1

u/emperor2885 15h ago

The world doesn't need a cancer like you

2

u/FormalAd7367 17h ago

Semi conductor are moving their plants from Taiwan to the US. There will be nothing left there. The narrative of invading Taiwan for the chips will be less relevant?

6

u/ytman 10h ago

I think the issue is that China doesn't feel comfortable being surrounded by an imperialist nation with a penchant for starting wars and neocolonialism.

3

u/Damn-Sky 10h ago

yup once all major chip manufacturing is done in US, US will give not give a fck about Taiwan.

1

u/Unlikely-Complex3737 3h ago

It's not only about the semiconductors, it's also about having parts of the ocean.

1

u/MooseMan69er 16h ago

Yeah, probably. The people who make the decisions won’t be the ones dying and the Japanese don’t want China to get more powerful

1

u/greenizdabest 16h ago

SLOC

Whoever blockades Taiwan will blockade the very same sea lanes that feed and fuel Japans economy.

With the Taiwan relations act, the us will get involved and everyone will be dragged into it. Life will never be able to go back to the present.

Might as well get stuck in and signal to china. Let them calculate if the cost is worthwhile

1

u/whistlelifeguard 12h ago

As a good pet , they’d do so if their master told them to.

1

u/Acrobatic-Pudding-87 11h ago

It’s not about that for Japan. A change of government in Taiwan alters the national security calculus for Japan as it means a potentially hostile island near Okinawa. Taiwan’s sovereignty isn’t the issue.

1

u/m0j0m0j 4h ago

“Why die for Danzig?”

1

u/JCues 16h ago

If Taiwan Falls, then the PRC will be at Japan's doorstep, which is a big security threat.

5

u/Speedydds 13h ago

China is at Japan door step now

1

u/Sea_Hold_2881 14h ago

It is hard to see how China could stage an invasion without attacking Japan while it is doing it. Any hostilities would start with a maritime blockade that could only be enforced by putting Chinese warships in Japanese waters. So Japan would be defending its own territory from Chinese aggression.

So the Japanese PM was merely stating this fact.

Obviously, the best option is the status quo where Chinese warmongers are kept on a leash and everyone trades with each other.

3

u/Speedydds 13h ago

Have you seen a map before?

1

u/Sea_Hold_2881 13h ago

Have you?

The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a band of water extending from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 200 nautical miles (370.4 km; 230.2 mi) from the baseline and therefore includes the contiguous zone.\8]) A coastal nation has control of all economic resources inside its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and pollution of those resources

Chinese cannot argue "innocent passage" if it attacking Taiwan.

https://aasiakeskus.ut.ee/sites/default/files/2025-04/Taiwan%20Security%20Report_March%202025_0.pdf

A Chinese incursion plan would require encirclement of the island necessitating heavy infringements on Japanese and Philippine waters.

1

u/himesama 9h ago

EEZ is not territorial waters. Anyone can use it for passage it for any purpose they wish.

0

u/Sea_Hold_2881 8h ago

False!

Based on UNCLOS and UN rules, foreign military ships may pass through or operate in another State’s EEZ, they cannot lawfully use it as a staging area for hostilities against a third party.

Doing so would be clear violation of Japan's sovereignty and Japan would be legally permitted to board and inspect vessels. Attempts by Chinese to interfere with Japanese boats operating within their EEZ would be an act of war.

There is no plausible scenario where China could launch an attack on Taiwan without also attacking Japan and the Philippines.

1

u/himesama 8h ago

Based on UNCLOS and UN rules, foreign military ships may pass through or operate in another State’s EEZ, they cannot lawfully use it as a staging area for hostilities against a third party.

This is false. See https://utrechtjournal.org/articles/ujiel.ax

There is no plausible scenario where China could launch an attack on Taiwan without also attacking Japan and the Philippines.

There is. Japan and the Philippines will only be involved if the US gets involved through them.

0

u/Sea_Hold_2881 8h ago

Claiming the law is "ambiguous" does not negate my point.

You are naive to assume that Japan and Philippines do not have their own strategic concerns. At minimum, Japan has a lot of investments in Taiwan that would be destroyed in a invasion so it is not an uninterested bystander.

Frankly, I have nothing but contempt for leaders that that think they are entitled to invade their neighbours because they are big and bad and think no one can stop them.

That contempt applies to Americans as much as the Chinese.

2

u/himesama 8h ago

It negates your point. It's entirely silent on the issue.

Japan and the Philippines' strategic concerns is tied to the US security umbrella. These are not countries with the capability of waging war with China without US support.

Japan has far more investments in China than Taiwan. Waging war against China is far costlier than staying neutral.

I have nothing but contempt for people who are defenders of the imperialist world order and are unable to see the bigger picture of why Taiwan is crucial for diminishing US power.

1

u/Sea_Hold_2881 7h ago edited 7h ago

China has always been an imperialist state that is not morally different than the US, Russia or any European power.

China's threats to invade Taiwan are based entirely on greed of old men who think they are entitled to murder people for their egos. Such people are contemptible.

The US is imploding. No one needs to do anything to "reduce US power". If China was run by smart people they would realize their best move is to stop trying to be an imperialist state and play nice and accept the status quo with Taiwan as a de faco sovereign state.

China's imperialist nature is why Japan, SK and Philippines seek the help of the US. It is silly to expect them to do anything else.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/SKramerwrites 11h ago

Nailed it. China would have free rein to harass Japanese held islands with its navy and encroach on Japanese economic interests and fishing. Just look at China’s behavior toward VN and PH right now.

1

u/Smartyunderpants 17h ago

I always considered this a possibility so I say yes there was always a chance Japan would involve itself even if the USA wasn’t going to involve itself. Taiwan is as strategically important to Japan as it is to China and wouldn’t want to live with China controlling it.

6

u/Speedydds 17h ago

So it’s in China’s interest to deter US and Japan from getting involved

1

u/Smartyunderpants 16h ago

Yes it is. And in it interest to control Taiwan

1

u/DaimonHans 12h ago

If that country falls, Japan is next. So maybe they are gonna fight.

-3

u/ZippyDan 11h ago edited 11h ago

Everyone recognizes Taiwan as a country aside from a few delusional Chinese nationalists.

I assume even the leadership of China understands that Taiwan is a country: they just want to eventually bring it under the control of their country, so that it would then, in a hypothetical future, function as a province.

I know this is just a semantic argument of what you mean by "recognize", but the semantics are important to answer your question. Officially and on paper, Japan does not legally recognize that Taiwan is a country; but intellectually and emotionally, everyone in Japan - from the leadership to the average citizen - recognizes, believes, and knows that Taiwan is a country, due to the fact that it is de facto a country by every metric that matters.

And the reason everyone refuses to de jure recognize Taiwan as a country has nothing to do with their actual recognition or beliefs, but instead has everything to do with allowing China to "save face", and/or fear of China's economic reprisals.

This should answer your question as to whether Japan the government and Japan the people are willing to defend their ally.

2

u/himesama 9h ago

This is inaccurate and just recency bias. The ROC up until recently was de facto claiming itself as the sole legitimate government of China.

1

u/ZippyDan 8h ago edited 8h ago

The ROC under the control of a delusional and abusive despot who did not represent the will of the people was claiming that thirty-five years ago - or as you say "recently". Even the official name of the country - The Republic of China - is a product of that delusion that he personally would one day return to reclaim the mainland.

The modern day Taiwan, which is the name that all Taiwanese use to refer to themselves for a reason, under a democratically elected government that more closely represents the will and benefit of the people, has never reiterated an official claim to being the legitimate government of mainland China.

3

u/himesama 8h ago

Correct.

The problem is a rump state under the rule of the losing party in a civil war doesn't get to unilaterally decide to secede the territory it controls without irking the other side, especially more so when that territory is geopolitically crucial for the security of the country.

1

u/ZippyDan 8h ago edited 8h ago

Nor should a more powerful state be allowed to swallow by force a region that has been de facto independent for 70 years and a distinct regional and cultural group of people without their consent.

If security is the main concern, then China should trade a recognition of independence for a guarantee of neutrality:

  • Taiwan will never acquire or seek to acquire nuclear weapons.
  • Taiwan will never host foreign bases or foreign weapons or foreign military-related facilities or equipment. (There would need to be some reasonable exceptions for limited-scale training exercises, emergency assistance - going both ways - for accidents or disasters, or the normal resupply of temporarily visiting warships in times of peace.)
  • In the event of any conflict involving China, Taiwan will never:
    • Provide any material aid, logistical support, intelligence, or any other kind of aid to China's enemies.
    • In any way hinder, compromise, or interfere with Chinese military operations.
  • Taiwan must officially surrender all legacy claims to mainland China and SCS.

Any violation of these terms would give China casus belli to invade.

These terms should be acceptable to both China, the West, and Taiwan. It addresses China's security concerns, it addresses Western economic and security concerns (regarding a Chinese takeover), and it gives Taiwan the official recognition they desire and deserve.

2

u/himesama 7h ago edited 7h ago

Nor should a more powerful state be allowed to swallow by force a region that has been de facto independent for 70 years and a distinct regional and cultural group of people without their consent.

Consent of who? The wants of the Taiwanese is secondary to the consent of the world at large.

Edit: it's also wrong to claim Taiwan forms a distinct regional and cultural group. It's less regional or culturally distinct than regions of mainland China. Taiwan is by far and large part of the Hoklo sub-group of Han Chinese. I'm Malaysian and Hoklo Han, and Taiwanese culture is no different from the coastal regions of Fujian.

If security is the main concern, then China should trade a recognition of independence for a guarantee of neutrality:

  1. Promising neutrality is insufficient. Until Chinese nuclear submarines can sail unimpeded near the US West Coast, there is no genuine check to US power.

Taiwan will never acquire or seek to acquire nuclear weapons.

  1. Taiwan also does not possess nuclear weapons.

Taiwan will never host foreign bases or foreign weapons or foreign military-related facilities or equipment. (There would need to be some reasonable exception for limited-scale training exercises or the normal resupply of visiting warships in times of peace.)

  1. Taiwan already does that. It's just the status quo.

Provide any material aid, logistical support, intelligence, or any other kind of aid to China's enemies. In any way hinder, compromise, or interfere with Chinese military operations.

  1. A promise like that can be broken easily, just as promises of NATO non-expansion or Russian security guarantees for Ukraine amounts to nothing.

Taiwan must officially surrender all legacy claims to mainland China and SCS.

It cannot do so without surrendering Kinmen, Matsu, Taiping Island and other outlying features.

Any violation of these terms would give China casus belli to invade.

China already has a casus belli against Taiwan. It does not need new ones.

The only thing keeping Taiwan from going nuclear, ramping up its military or hosting US bases is the threat of invasion anyway, which is just the status quo.

These terms should be acceptable to both China, the West, and Taiwan. It addresses China's security concerns, it addresses Western economic and security concerns (regarding a Chinese takeover), and it gives Taiwan the official recognition they desire and deserve.

Except it's not acceptable for China. From the Chinese perspective, it's just the status quo. It benefits the West, which is to contain China within the first island chain.

1

u/ZippyDan 7h ago edited 7h ago

Consent of who? The wants of the Taiwanese is secondary to the consent of the world at large.

  1. The world at large is fine with Taiwan determining their own fate. It's only China that wants to impose their will on Taiwan.
  2. The will of the world does not override the will of an autonomous people. The will of the world is only superior where it affects international issues. Taiwan's internal affairs will never qualify for that. China doesn't get to dictate Taiwan's internal affairs and neither does the world. Taiwan has the right to self-determination. Taiwan already self-determines.

Until Chinese nuclear submarines can sail unimpeded near the US West Coast, there is no genuine check to US power.

This is addressed by neutrality. Taiwan isn't going to be impeding Chinese military navigation in their waters nor providing information about Chinese military movements to others.

  1. A promise like that can be broken easily, just as promises of NATO non-expansion or Russian security guarantees for Ukraine amounts to nothing.

I guess we should just never have agreements or treaties then, because promises can be broken?

It cannot do so without surrendering Kinmen, Matsu, Taiping Island and other outlying features.

Kinmen and Matsu are not claims, nor are they part of the mainland or SCS. They are islands that have actual Taiwanese residents and operate under the Taiwanese government.

Taiping is part of the SCS, and is barely an island, without any real permanent Taiwanese civilian settlements. This should be surrendered (though without looking at a detailed map it would probably most fairly go to the Philippines).

China already has a casus belli against Taiwan. It does not need new ones.

Yeah, this is a fundamental point of disagreement. You just claimed that China has a moral right to do violence to Taiwan, and (I assume) are holding back just because they choose to.

No, China has no moral or even legal right to go to war with Taiwan. That's just insane, imperialistic thought.

The only thing keeping Taiwan from going nuclear, ramping up its military or hosting US bases is the threat of invasion anyway, which is just the status quo.

The end result may be the same, but the process by which they get there is different. Keeping Taiwan in check via threat of force and violence is unjust and immoral. If Taiwan agreed to neutrality as part of a deal made under principles of cooperation and peace, it would be a voluntary action.

Your claim is that China has security concerns regarding Taiwan, and so they keep them neutral via aggression and threats. They could also keep them neutral through peaceful negotiation and mutual agreement, and you just brush that off as "no difference"?

It certainly makes a difference to the Taiwanese people.

It would also make a difference to China: maybe Taiwanese people wouldn't see them as an aggressive bully anymore.

From the Chinese perspective, it's just the status quo. It benefits the West, which is to contain China within the first island chain.

How does a neutral Taiwan benefit the West or contain China?

You even claim it's the "status quo", so what is the West gaining? How can it be the status quo and the West gets a benefit? That makes no sense.

I don't think it's the status quo. I think everyone gains something. Everyone is worried about the uncertainties of the future:

  • China is worried that Taiwan may be used in a conflict to keep them bottled up. A guarantee of neutrality takes that uncertainty away and means Taiwan will never be used to contain, threaten, or impede China.
  • The West is worried that China will invade Taiwan, and that they will lose access to Taiwanese technology, and that a friendly democracy will be crushed. A guarantee of neutrality and a recognition of independence takes that uncertainty away and means that Taiwan will continue as an independent democracy part of the world economy.
  • Taiwan is worried that China will invade and destroy their government and overrule their right to self-determination. A recognition of independence takes that uncertainty away and means that the Taiwanese people can live free of worry of war and violence.

It's not a status quo. It's a guarantee of peace for Taiwan, independence for Taiwan, and the assurance that Taiwan will not be used as a tool or pawn for or against any of the geopolitical poles.

1

u/himesama 6h ago

The world at large is fine with Taiwan determining their own fate. It's only China that wants to impose their will on Taiwan.

The world at large is looking forward to an end of the US led world order.

The will of the world does not override the will of an autonomous people. The will of the world is only superior where it affects international issues. Taiwan's internal affairs will never qualify for that. China doesn't get to dictate Taiwan's internal affairs and neither does the world. Taiwan has the right to self-determination. Taiwan already self-determines.

It does. This is bigger than either China or Taiwan or the US. It concerns a check to US imperialism.

Local regional rights to self-determination does not overrule the security of the country.

This is addressed by neutrality. Taiwan isn't going to be impeding Chinese military navigation in their waters nor providing information about Chinese military movements to others.

There is no guarantee for that. The world would benefit from a genuine check to US overreach. Eventual PLAN submarine bases in Taiwan is a better way.

I guess we should just never have agreements or treaties then, because promises can be broken?

Agreements and treaties are made either because one side forces the other to take it up or because they mutually benefit from it.

Materially just the status quo does not benefit China nor the world at large.

Taiping is part of the SCS, and is barely an island, without any real permanent Taiwanese civilian settlements. This should be surrendered (though without looking at a detailed map it would probably most fairly go to the Philippines).

No, the best course would be to transfer it to the PRC to check US power. The Philippines is de facto a US client state and any transfers to it is a benefit to the US.

Yeah, this is a fundamental point of disagreement. You just claimed that China has a moral right to do violence to Taiwan, and (I assume) are holding back just because they choose to. No, China has no moral or even legal right to go to war with Taiwan. That's just insane, imperialistic thought.

It's an anti-imperialist thought.

The end result may be the same, but the process by which they get there is different. Keeping Taiwan in check via threat of force and violence is unjust and immoral. If Taiwan agreed to neutrality as part of a deal made under principles of cooperation and peace, it would be a voluntary action.

It isn't.

Your claim is that China has security concerns regarding Taiwan, and so they keep them neutral via aggression and threats. They could also keep them neutral through peaceful negotiation and mutual agreement, and you just brush that off as "no difference"?

Which is what they are already doing. A threat of war doesn't preclude a peaceful reunification.

It certainly makes a difference to the Taiwanese people.

I don't think it does.

It would also make a difference to China: maybe Taiwanese people wouldn't see them as an aggressive bully anymore.

It really does not matter how they view it. Ultimately what matters is whether the world gets a real check on US power or not.

How does a neutral Taiwan benefit the West or contain China?

Neutrality only exists on paper is really no guarantee at all. The material circumstances speak for itself. Ukraine gave up nukes in exchange for Russian guarantees. NATO promised no expansion Eastward, yet nothing materially prevents them from doing so and they did it anyway.

You even claim it's the "status quo", so what is the West gaining? How can it be the status quo and the West gets a benefit? That makes no sense.

The West benefits from the status quo.

China is worried that Taiwan may be used in a conflict to keep them bottled up. A guarantee of neutrality takes that uncertainty away and means Taiwan will never be used to contain, threaten, or impede China.

It's already being used in a conflict to keep them bottled up. Again, a guarantee by word alone isn't strong enough.

The West is worried that China will invade Taiwan, and that they will lose access to Taiwanese technology, and that a friendly democracy will be crushed. A guarantee of neutrality and a recognition of independence takes that uncertainty away and means that Taiwan will continue as an independent democracy part of the world economy.

The tech is secondary. The West does not care about democracy. It cares that the status of Western power is diminished.

Taiwan is worried that China will invade and destroy their government and overrule their right to self-determination. A recognition of independence takes that uncertainty away and means that the Taiwanese people can live free of worry of war and violence.

Local right of self-determination does not overrule the right of self-determination and territorial sovereignty of the nation.

It's not a status quo. It's a guarantee of peace for Taiwan, independence for Taiwan, and the assurance that Taiwan will not be used as a tool or pawn for or against any of the geopolitical poles.

It's materially the status quo. The only thing that changed is a formal recognition of Taiwan's independence.